March 26, 2009

Feng Shui Hooey

From this thread at JREF I learned of a recent post at a blog called Fengshui Forward (“We aim to gather fellow Chinese Metaphysics enthusiatics to discuss and promote Chinese 5 arts”), entitled United we stand, Divided we fall!. The author, ken, is bothered by the Penn & Teller Bullshit episode on Feng Shui – the one where each of the three Feng Shui experts comes up with completely different recommended colors and arrangements of furniture at the exact same house. Unfortunately ken has completely missed the point of the P&T program, and criticisms of Feng Shui in general:

It is very easy to discredit a practice like Feng Shui because Metaphysics is defined by Wikipedia as “investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science”.

No, that’s not how to discredit Feng Shui, although I agree it is easy to discredit. P&T discredit Feng Shui not by reference to a definition in Wikipedia (which would be an absurd way to do it anyway), but by simply showing that three so called “experts”, all using the exact same “science”, come up with completely different recommendations for the same problem. Let’s face it – they can’t all be right. The fact that they’re all different just demonstrates to any rational person that it’s nonsense. How would you tell which of the recommendations was right and which wrong? If Feng Shui had any actual real effect then it ought to be possible to tell by testing. But according to ken, you can’t test Feng Shui:

Feng Shui is not superstitious. It merely looks superstitious because it is beyond science and hence science cannot explain it and neither can humans. How do you expect a kid to explain the action of his parents? Since Feng Shui transcends science, one cannot get a satisfactory explanation of Feng Shui using scientific principles.

“Beyond science”? Science is just an organized way of testing hypotheses against reality. The phrase “beyond science” just means “can’t be tested to see if it works”. But why not? If it has any real effect surely that effect must be measurable (ie it is testable). If it’s effects really aren’t measurable, then what is the difference between Feng Shui and something that doesn’t exist? (Clearly, nothing.) In reality, what ken means by “beyond science”, is “can be tested to see if it works – we just won’t admit it doesn’t”. This is just science doesn't know everything combined with an appeal to other ways of knowing – a smokescreen to hide the fact that Feng Shui is made up nonsense that has very little correspondence with reality.

The lack of any basis Feng Shui has in reality is hilariously (and unintentionally) exposed in ken’s appeal for unity among fellow woomeisters:

If even Feng Shui enthuasiasts (sic) and practitioners can be going all out to discredit someone with the same beliefs, what more outsiders who are like Penn & Teller? Sometimes I wish fellow enthusiasts in Chinese Metaphysics wisen (sic) up and not be the proverbial “divided loose grains of sand”. If we help each other in this interest group or profession, Chinese Metaphysics & Feng Shui as a whole stands to gain. We as enthusiasts and practitioner of the same field stand to gain too. After all, one famous Chinese saying by the victimized Cao Zhi in the Romance of the 3 Kingdom goes “Why cannibalize one that is of the same family?”

How can we help each other? By treating fellow practitioners and enthusiasts as allies and suggest areas of weakness as points to consider for improvement. By not treating fellow practitioners and enthusiasts as rivals and going all out to attack one perceived point of fallible practice or advocate.

Translation: “don’t criticize someone else’s woo even if it makes no sense, because they might criticize your woo for making no sense.” Of course, in actual science, scientists do criticize each other. It’s only by criticizing and dismissing weak ideas, that the good ones can flourish. But then with actual science, they have a way to determine what is real and what isn’t – they look at evidence. This is of course a problem for woo such as Feng Shui, since with no evidence and no way of testing it (it transcends science, remember), there is no way to determine what is real and what isn’t. Consequently woomeisters such as ken have no option but to accept uncritically everyone else’s woo. And that’s the problem (one of them, anyway) with woo. With no rational way of testing your hypothesis against reality, you are in freefall – you have to believe in everything. Ken really is in danger of being so open minded that his brains will fall out. If they haven’t already.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I love the use of the term "science" as some kind of strange and incomprehensible system. As you say, outcomes can be tested. Even if I don't know why it works, I can still determine that if I flip a switch, a light goes on. Without any measurable results, Feng Shui is nothing, despite it being "beyond science".

[T]hree so called “experts”, all using the exact same “science”, come up with completely different recommendations for the same problem. Let’s face it – they can’t all be right.

That's only true if you assume that there is exactly one optimal solution. Perhaps there are multiple possible solutions of equal validity? Ask three programmers to solve a problem, they'll give you three different solutions. That doesn't mean that computers are bunk, it just means that there's more than one way to skin a cat.

The ontological problems are the killers. This particular argument is every bit as bullshitty as Feng Shui itself.

Well yes and no. Some of their solutions were exact opposites of each other. For example, one person said the red sofa was the best color possible; another said it was the worst. They can't both be right.

one famous Chinese saying by the victimized Cao Zhi in the Romance of the 3 Kingdom goes “Why cannibalize one that is of the same family?”

I bet exponents of the Mayan Calendar wouldn't use a quote like that.

But seriously, it shows their attitude to criticism - not even tolerating it from others in the field, and even going so far as to liken it to cannibalism. Feng Shui isn't a set of knowledge that can be improved or adapted or can stand on its own; rather it's as if it's a soft bodied being whose nature is neither right nor wrong. It simply is what it is and must be protected from the sharp destructive knives of criticism.

Feng Shui is not superstitious. It merely looks superstitious because it is beyond science and hence science cannot explain it and neither can humans. How do you expect a kid to explain the action of his parents? Since Feng Shui transcends science, one cannot get a satisfactory explanation of Feng Shui using scientific principles.

From the use of his expression "beyond science," I get the distinct impression that he considers this a virtue. He seems to have gotten the impression that when something "transcends" science, it is somehow superior, when in fact, all it means is that this sort of thing is outside the domain of science -- thus making it either art or nonsense.

And, as pointed out already, if it makes testable claims, then it still can be studied by the scientific method, at least to a degree. But I wouldn't bet in favor of it being supported by such a study.

hahaha, this reminds me of an argument I had with my mother.... our conversations sometimes seem like taken from a sitcom.....
because of something that was being said on tv, I don't even remember what it was, I said "that's nonsense", and my mom said that I'm too critic and I have a very peculiar way of seeing things and that I should respect others opinions because "if they believe in it, it's their truth so you must respect them".
I said "no you musn't, if they believe something that's not true, and they willingly talk about it on tv as if it was, it should be pointed out that it's not true, and 'their truth', doesn't deserve respect if it's nonsense".
oh, I remembered, it was a talk show and they had a guest that said aliens took him for a ride to ganimedes, :) , hahahaaha, and in 2012 humanity will evolve spiritually, and lots of bullshit.
well, it might be "his truth", but it certainly is not THE real truth. the guy is either a liar or deluded and needs medical help, but my mom thought I was being aggresive and "everybody belives in different things and their truths shall be respected", and, guess what example she mentioned: religion.
I gave another example: "should you respect an holocaust denialist because 'it's his truth and he believes it'" and she answered nothing and ignored me completly and went on watching tv. my mom always does that when she doesn't want to admit she said something without thinking or stuff like that.

sorry for the rant, but this feng shui thing reminded me of my personal experiences being atheist and skeptic, on a crazy world where everybody seems to believe outrageous things for no reason at all, and sometimes they even demand "respect" for the ridiculous beliefs trying to disguise them as "their personal truth", as if there was not a real, actual, factual, objective truth that automatically overrides the made up things people believe. (like religion, 2012 new age mumbo jumbo, ancient chinese "medicine" or whatever that's supposed to be "more advanced" than current tested knowledge, and so on).

I have a long rectangular room with a door far to one side, on one of the "long" walls. When i first furnished it i placed my desk one the end near the door. Everything was fine, i did my work. But then I bought a bigger bed and at the same time decided to rearrange my room. Placing my bed near the door and my desk at the far end.

What I noticed after a while was that I was no longer working like I used to. It just didn't feel right. I blamed it on the lighting but then after doing some research it was because my door was to my back.

It just creates that little extra comfort, however subconcious(i might get bashed for using this word here lol), knowing that you know exactly what's going on in front and back of you.

What you describe is not Feng Shui, rather a small part of it, mixed with a lot of your own common sense. You then label this "Feng Shui", but it isn't that. And what Feng Shui is, isn't half as sensible as what you describe.

Feng Shui is a supposed system of ancient wisdom that recognises mystical powers in furniture arrangement. The article points out that as a "system" it's so chaotic, contradictory and arbitrary that even its practitioners have to be ordered not to look for anything common in it beyond the label.

You have smartly left all the mystical powers guff out - you're not claiming that you were broke because you had the vacuum cleaner in the "abundance corner", or a secret arrow from the neighbour's hallway was penetrating your "fame" corner, or whatever.

So you've removed all this mystical powers stuff and then commented on your own version of common sense. Hanging the label "Feng Shui" on this doesn't count as as a defense of it.

How about commenting on the aspects of Feng Shui that were criticised in the article?

Feng Shui is NOT "a supposed system of ancient wisdom that recognizes mystical powers in furniture arrangement", this is a misguided new age definition not to be confused with deep Feng Shui.

Feng Shui is both an art and a science like architecture, it has correlative thinking particular to the Chinese culture as well as rational and creative thinking in it process. Because very few people understand the nature of correlative thinking and its relation to other modes of thinking, people think it is superstitious.

It is very easy to jump to conclusion about Feng Shui and dismiss it as useless. If that is the case then the Darwinian law of evolution would have rendered it obsolete, why is it still hanging around us like a bad smell? May be there is something more to it than we realize.

It may not be a hard science like we know it in the West, but it can be studied in a scientific way like architecture and different modes of thinking in philosophy. So lets keep an open mind and investigate this subject more thoroughly before passing judgement on it.

I have written some preliminary thoughts on the subject after studying and working with Feng Shui for more than 30 years as a Feng Shui Architect, perhaps you would like to check it out and tell me what you think:

If that is the case then the Darwinian law of evolution would have rendered it obsolete, why is it still hanging around us like a bad smell?

What?!? evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of Feng Shui or any other woo except in our evolutionary abilities of pattern recognition that are so good that it detects patterns that are not there (see Pareidolia).

There are lots of things that exist that are no longer useful, but evolution doesn't say "hmm, thats not useful anymore, we'll just remove that now". wisdom teeth, foreskin, religion, and our predilection for group think and falling for fallacy laden arguments.

If you want to call feng shui and art form then OK we are on the same page. And you would expect a number of "feng shui artists" to arrive at different designs like "kinematic artists" may make different sculptures. But that is NOT how many practitioners refer to it as. They make claims that a feng shui design can make money come in, or improve health.

You do it too:If we live in an environment with bad Feng Shui, sooner or later it will affect us somehow.

Really, please link to study that shows this. Show how bad health, or financial woes, or discomfort was alleviated by a feng shui specific design as opposed to just changing the environment. My guess is that you will find "sham feng shui" is exactly the same as feng shui.

There is a great deal of know-how that has been collected through the 2000 – 3000 years of evolution of Feng Shui practice.

I read your article, and can well imagine you use Feng Shui in a practical and creative way to improve living spaces. I have no trouble with the idea that mood and general well being is affected by surroundings in all kinds of ways.

However, what I would criticise in your article is that you seem to see science as some kind of narrow ideology which is blindly opposed to certain ways of viewing the world. Science is a methodology for:

New agers stop at step 1, but still want to claim their ideas are "science".

A school of art can have a highly complex system and a coherent view of the world without needing to claim it's "scientific", and I wonder if the term is really the right one for Feng Shui. It's one thing to deal with practical design or construction problems - artists do too, but it's another to claim that Feng Shui has a systematic insight into psychology, and can order space to manipulate these psychological workings in a predictable way.

I suspect it's more subjective and case-specific than a set of universal principles.

Also, a minor point: in your comment above you wrote:

It is very easy to jump to conclusion about Feng Shui and dismiss it as useless. If that is the case then the Darwinian law of evolution would have rendered it obsolete...

Darwinian evolution, in this context, would predict that the ideas best suited to reproducing (i.e. the ones that pander to peoples desires) will win out, not the ones which may be of higher quality but contain harsh realities or difficult truths.

If Feng Shui has outlived its usefulness like religion, then I don’t mind wasting my time studying it. Recent research has shown having a religious belief do improve productivity and reliability at work because faith keeps us going longer, so it is not that useless like a piece of foreskin.

By saying Feng Shui is an art I don’t mean it is a piece of painting. Art refers to a different mode of thinking as compared to scientific thinking. Art is based on feeling and science is based on logic, Feng Shui is Chinese cultural phenomenon that uses a unique mix of art and science, as we understood them in the west and it cannot be put into a pigeonhole of a narrower definition of your choosing.

There is such a thing as a healthy environment because there is balance and harmony, hence a conservation of energy, and one way to achieve this is by looking at the Feng Shui of the place. It is not that different to environmental psychology or good architecture, but using a Chinese paradigm.

Feng Shui is like any other form of problem solving techniques with a creative content, it is an effective tool we can use, if we know how.

Like many others, you have been misled by the popular media and have an unrealistic “new age” expectation of Feng Shui. We are not dealing with some mysterious force here; instead we are dealing with the age-old problem of man’s relationship to his environment.

Please do some serious research on the subject, like reading up Lee Sang-Hae’s PhD thesis, ‘Feng Shui – its Context and Meaning”; perhaps then you would have a better understanding of the subject and apply your healthy skepticism in a more constructive way.

I said Feng Shui is part science because it can be studied in a scientific way and also in its application, it uses observation and analysis of the existing situation as its base for further exploration and that is why it was called "Xiang Di" and "Xiang Zhai" (observing the Earth and observing the dwellings) before the term Feng Shui was coined in Jin Dynasty by Guo Pu.

It is also a philosophy, hence it was known as Kan Yu (the study of Heaven and Earth) as well. At the same time it is an art, because it uses creative thinking as well as rational and correlative thinking in its process.

Like most time tested disciplines, it has a set of universal principles as well as subjective interpretations of these principles and like science, Feng Shui also made some assumptions in its paradigm that is culturally unique.

I take your point about the Darwinian law of evolution, thank you again for your comments.

In the long run, it does not matter whether Feng Shui is a science or an art or something else. What matters is whether it is a useful tool in saving our environment and fulfilling human needs. Call it what you want, but please take a good look at it before throwing it out in the rubbish bin, it could be something useful we can recycle from the past for the future. That is my hope and my faith as a Feng Shui architect.

Howard Choy said: "Like most time tested disciplines, it has a set of universal principles as well as subjective interpretations of these principles and like science, Feng Shui also made some assumptions in its paradigm that is culturally unique."

But science doesn't rely on time to test its hypotheses (well only in a trivial sense) it uses scientific method and has regard for pesky things such as evidence to sort the wheat from the chaff. Feng Shui, on the other hand, just moves the furniture around.

Can you describe to me how Feng shui is not "moving furniture around" according to a set of rules any more than haiku is "placing words" according to a set of rules?

Can you explain what mechanism and what evidence there is for Feng Shui in bettering anything with respect to the human condition that plain old art (or fake Feng Shui), in its variety of forms doesn't do?

There is such a thing as a healthy environment because there is balance and harmony, hence a conservation of energy,...

This is completely meaningless. This is the exact same attempt at equivocation you tried to use by including evolution and Feng Shui in the same sentence. Its the same attempt at trying to get something to sound scientific that Deepak Chopra uses when he puts the word "quantum" and "vibration" in the same sentence as whatever nonsense he it promoting at the time.

There is certainly such a thing as a healthy environment, no question about it. But again, please show me a single piece of evidence that shows Feng Shui in fact betters someones life more than just moving furniture into new places and claiming it was feng shui. Or better than enjoying art in its variety of forms.

I agree it is not that different than architecture, but guess what every architect needs?....they need sign off from a building engineer who says that the structure is sound. That engineer uses science and scientific principles to perform this task. What scientifically validated principles does a Feng Shui artist incorporate?

Feng Shui is in fact an attempt at environmental psychology, agreed, but without the work required to validate it. Further, environmental psychology examines the human response to the environment. Feng shui makes claims like "if you put water here, it will benefit your financial well being" or "it provides balance". Maybe not your feng shui, but examples of this are not hard to find.

None of these claims are verifiable and unlike actual science, where the knowledge of something leads to universal ability to use that knowledge in the same way (i.e. scientists from all over the world use Newtons laws, Einstien's laws, Ohm's law and other foundations of science to be able to launch highly precise instruments into space, or smash particles, or design a heating system), the "laws" of feng shui do not lead to similar results when incorporated. That is becuase some of the assumptiuons of Feng shui rely on mystical (i.e. non-existent) things.

But feng shui, with its unverifiable assumptions, arbitrary and vague rules and lack of a connection to actual human betterment, simply becomes art. The same sort of art as Monet, Calder, and Walt Whitman.

You may not be talking about The Feng Shui that includes references to Qi and connections to geomagnetism and polarities, but that is like an acupuncturist saying that it works, even though the concept of Qi and meridians may be outdated. The problem is that without the mystical elements, there becomes no reason at all to believe it does anything whatsoever.... unless of course, you can produce a few studies to show that I am wrong.

However, you do in fact seem to trust some other unmeasurable, unverifiable modalities like Yin and Yang:

the theoretical framework for Feng Shui is based on Chinese metaphysics whose origin comes from the observations of nature and the interaction of the yin and yang forces in our environment.

That is a specific claim of a non-existent force ,unless you can show me a Yin meter. And the very act of you scoffing at my request for a Yin meter, should explain to you that you have not actually understood what is a scientific theory and what is myth passed down from generation to generation. Sorry if I don't beleive world models that were developed 3000 years ago. It makes no sense to do that. Why learn anything? Why examine the veracity of anything if we are going to choose to ignore the newer, more accurate knowledge. Will you also be trusting the methods of weather prediction from 2000 years ago? How about cancer treatment or infection?

By the way you describe your version of Feng Shui it seems to be simply Art+Conjecture.

You seem to have trouble understanding that "time tested" is meaningless. Time testing just means there were people willing to believe crap for a while. It doesn't mean that any time tested belief has a correlation with objective reality.

Time tested is related to the duration of time tested and what is tested, so objective reality is related to the subjective reality objectively perceived, they are both meaningless as in all the words depending on meanings we give them. You seem to have trouble understanding reality is relative and crap happens all the time because we are human and not a clockwork.

“Can you describe to me how Feng shui is not "moving furniture around" according to a set of rules any more than haiku is "placing words" according to a set of rules?”

There are no fixed rules in moving furniture around in Feng Shui (FS), because FS is not rigid and mechanical. Furniture arrangement should respond to the “benxing” (original nature) of a space and needs of the users and they vary from situation to situation.

“Can you explain what mechanism and what evidence there is for Feng Shui in bettering anything with respect to the human condition that plain old art (or fake Feng Shui), in its variety of forms doesn't do?”

The mechanism used in FS is “ganying” (mutual resonance) between the objects and users and when that happens there is “qing” (affection and connection); where there is “qing”, “sheng qi” (life enhancing synergy/qi) is assembled and that is the aim of good FS.

There are many evidence in traditional old towns and villages where FS is used to lay out the built forms to respond to the condition of the land and the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of the occupants so they can thrive and multiply.

“There is such a thing as a healthy environment because there is balance and harmony, hence a conservation of energy,...
This is completely meaningless. This is the exact same attempt at equivocation you tried to use by including evolution and Feng Shui in the same sentence. Its the same attempt at trying to get something to sound scientific that Deepak Chopra uses when he puts the word "quantum" and "vibration" in the same sentence as whatever nonsense he it promoting at the time.”

We just came back from a well-preserved old town in Yunan (Lijing) where FS was used to create a healthy environment that lasted more than 1,500 years and is still thriving.

Modern China is fast destroying her environment and one of the reasons was the communists branded FS as a superstition like you are doing now and refused to seek out some of the lesson FS can offer to improve the environment based on using yin yang harmony and balance as a yardstick for survival. If you want a proof that harmony and balance is good for survival, try walking with your body tilted at 15 degrees for a while and see what happens.

“There is certainly such a thing as a healthy environment, no question about it. But again, please show me a single piece of evidence that shows Feng Shui in fact betters someones life more than just moving furniture into new places and claiming it was feng shui. Or better than enjoying art in its variety of forms.”

If you ever have a chance to visit Sydney Australia, go to Chinatown at Haymarket and also visit the Chinese Garden in Darling Harbour and you can see how we used FS to improve the working of these two public spaces, so they are more profitable and enjoyable.

“I agree it is not that different than architecture, but guess what every architect needs?....they need sign off from a building engineer who says that the structure is sound. That engineer uses science and scientific principles to perform this task. What scientifically validated principles does a Feng Shui artist incorporate?”

An architect needs an engineer to sign off his structure is done for professional and legal reasons, it has nothing to do whether architecture is a science or not. We used science in FS as well, like going along with the law of gravity instead against it, using the third law of thermodynamic to keep things in good repair, and use the law of symmetry to work with yin and yang, etc.

“Feng Shui is in fact an attempt at environmental psychology, agreed, but without the work required to validate it. Further, environmental psychology examines the human response to the “environment. Feng shui makes claims like "if you put water here, it will benefit your financial well being" or "it provides balance. Maybe not your feng shui, but examples of this are not hard to find.”

Balance and harmony we use in FS all the time because it makes common sense; as to use water for financial well being, it works only if one regards water as a symbol for wealth and not literally, otherwise one would do stupid things like keeping the toilet seat down to stop the wealth from going down the sewer!

“None of these claims are verifiable and unlike actual science, where the knowledge of something leads to universal ability to use that knowledge in the same way (i.e. scientists from all over the world use Newtons laws, Einstien's laws, Ohm's law and other foundations of science to be able to launch highly precise instruments into space, or smash particles, or design a heating system), the "laws" of feng shui do not lead to similar results when incorporated. That is becuase some of the assumptiuons of Feng shui rely on mystical (i.e. non-existent) things.”

None of these claims you mentioned are related to FS except harmony and balance, which do make common sense. You assumed Feng Shui rely on mystical things and this assumption comes about because you read too many new-age books.

“But feng shui, with its unverifiable assumptions, arbitrary and vague rules and lack of a connection to actual human betterment, simply becomes art. The same sort of art as Monet, Calder, and Walt Whitman.”

The “art” part of FS comes from resolving the various contradictions encountered in a FS analysis in a creative way and then test learn from experience to see if they work for a particular situation. There is no one universally correct solution or formula because every human being is different and every life situation is different. FS is not the same sort of art as a painting.

“You may not be talking about The Feng Shui that includes references to Qi and connections to geomagnetism and polarities, but that is like an acupuncturist saying that it works, even though the concept of Qi and meridians may be outdated. The problem is that without the mystical elements, there becomes no reason at all to believe it does anything whatsoever.... unless of course, you can produce a few studies to show that I am wrong.”

The concept of Qi is context-related and the definition changes according to its usage and that is why in the Chinese language there is always an extra qualifier/character to go with the character “qi”, like “tian qi” for the weather and “xiong qi” for courage, etc. Qi is not mystical but at the same time it is not capable of being reproduced with a machine, unless one redefines what type of qi one likes to produce, like “dian qi” for electricity for example.

“However, you do in fact seem to trust some other unmeasurable, unverifiable modalities like Yin and Yang:”

FS Qi by definition is no more than the synergy of yin and yang coming together in a constructive way, not unlike when a man and a woman come together to make a baby. Is this not “scientific” enough for you? ☺

“the theoretical framework for Feng Shui is based on Chinese metaphysics whose origin comes from the observations of nature and the interaction of the yin and yang forces in our environment.
That is a specific claim of a non-existent force ,unless you can show me a Yin meter. And the very act of you scoffing at my request for a Yin meter, should explain to you that you have not actually understood what is a scientific theory and what is myth passed down from generation to generation. Sorry if I don't beleive world models that were developed 3000 years ago. It makes no sense to do that. Why learn anything? Why examine the veracity of anything if we are going to choose to ignore the newer, more accurate knowledge. Will you also be trusting the methods of weather prediction from 2000 years ago? How about cancer treatment or infection?”

A yin meter is not possible without a yang meter, because the yin yang concept is based on correlative thinking. So to measure yin-ness, one has to compare the measurement with another one that indicates yang-ness. By asking me to make a yin meter on its own shows you have not understood Chinese correlative thinking and you tried to judge one mode of thought with another.

You don’t believe in a world model developed 3000 years ago and you prefer newer ones. That assumes you can chose only one or the other, why can’t both be right and useful? We can constantly learn new things yet keep some of the old one around if they have not lost their usefulness or their truth.

As for weather forecast, I trust neither the past nor the modern model, so I use both and decide each morning for myself. Modern medicine as yet do not have a full answer for cancer so many people also use both the past and present methods of treatment. Infection is another story; so modern medicine does have its advantages, but to throw away the old model just for the sake of being is a waste of hard-earned experience. The new is not always better than the old; logic is not always better than irrational thoughts and science don’t have all the answers, so why everything has to be new and base on logic and science. Isn’t it a bit limiting?

“By the way you describe your version of Feng Shui it seems to be simply Art+Conjecture.”

I can also say, “By the way you describe your version of Feng Shui it seems to be simply Fart+Conjecture”, but it would not change the true nature of FS and if you insisted that FS is no more than an art of furniture placement then I can only smile and walk away in silence, knowing whatever you say would not change the true nature of FS either. It is what it is, no matter what label you and I try to put on it.

You seem to have trouble understanding reality is relative and crap happens all the time because we are human and not a clockwork.

Firstly, in what way do you consider the law of gravity relative? Or chemistry?

Secondly, indeed humans are not clockwork, and that is a large part of the objection to your presentation of feng shui as "scientific". I, and others here, consider feng shui as an art, not a science, because there's no evidence that feng shui has discovered any universal key for manipulating the deeper aspects of the human psyche. Gothic architecture has a clear set of principles, but no one bothers calling it a science. You would be on much more solid ground if you presented feng shui as an art.

You don’t believe in a world model developed 3000 years ago and you prefer newer ones. That assumes you can chose only one or the other, why can’t both be right and useful?

Both can be useful, but right is a whole other story. You yourself don't really seem to hold this philosophy either, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing here. You would have immediately accepted that according to an equally "right" skeptic reality, Feng Shui is indeed really just magical furniture rearranging. Yet you seem fully committed to the idea that some representations of reality are more accurate than others, and worth arguing about.

Further to this point, you compare living in an "unbalanced environment" to walking at a 15 degree angle. That's already quite an extreme commitment to an objective reality, rather than a relativistic one. In your view, Feng Shui clearly informs exactly how an environment is unbalanced, and it is as objectively clear as if someone is walking at a 15 degree tilt. What ever happened to different realities both being right?

You can't have it both ways.

May 10,2009 – Edited by Skeptico to add:

FYI everybody, I just managed to edit out the two incorrect <i/> tags in this comment, that had caused the rest of the page to appear in italics - Skeptico.

Okay, we fully agree that, for example, having balance in the sense of not walking at 15 degrees is a good thing. However, you're equivocating other types of balance with it, to say that it's better to have feng shui help with balance, and not only that, but you don't have any evidence it does in the first place. This applies to almost all your stuff.

Generally speaking, we are arguing whether Feng Shui is an art or a science or something else. This is trying to label it into one name when it has features of many things combined together. FS is part art, part science, part architecture, part history, part philosophy, part culture and part metaphysics and many other bits and pieces if one look even more closely.

Specifically speaking, I consider gravity relative according to Einstein's theory, and when someone can jump a world record height or doing an amazing parkor, he or she has a relative gravity to me. When it comes to chemistry, there is the material chemistry and the human kind, so relatively speaking they are relative.

If you read me carefully, then you will realize I have no problem with TechSkeptic thinking FS is just magical furniture re-arranging, that is his reality, neither mine nor what FS really is, and if he wants to walk with a 15 degree tilt, that is fine with me as well, but don't tell me when I am walking straight, that it is some sort of magical walk and it is just an art form.

People here think that they can use critical thinking to evaluate the truth, the truth is only their truth, otherwise there would not be any more scientific inquiries because the truth is out there already and all we have to do is to use critical thinking to get it. How come all these scientists keep arguing with each other and we keep doing it ourselves here?

The skeptics are only airheads thinking that they are standing on the ground when they are standing on the airheads. Me? I am thinking I am standing on the ground and when I look down, it is only the skeptics that I am standing on. There you have it, back to the drawing board!

Nice chatting with you any way, at least you can reflect at the reflection and when you can do this, you have it both ways.

Feng Shui can help with balance in a house by using a light meter to say this side of the house is too bright and this side is too dark, so you need some shades here and knock out a window there. Feng Shui can use observation and say this house is too irregular and too confusing in its planning, so try to buy another one to avoid feeling lost and waste your money. Do you want me to go on?

Don't tell me, it is only common sense! If everyone has common sense then we don't need FS. If everyone can use critical thinking, then we don't need any skeptics.

Do you realize that you are doing exactly the same thing that you are accusing me of doing by equivocating my walking balance with my house balance? Who is full of BS now?

first off, I am enjoying or conversation here. Don'tlet my writing put you off. Skeptics always come off as the assholes. Its an aspect of doubting you claims.

Before I go into the rest of your post let me respond to this:

A yin meter is not possible without a yang meter, because the yin yang concept is based on correlative thinking. So to measure yin-ness, one has to compare the measurement with another one that indicates yang-ness.

That is precisely the answer I thought you would give. Which is why I put in the sentence about you scoffing at my request for a yin meter without thinking about my question.

But fine, have it your way, show me a Yin and a Yang meter. Or two meters, or a meter that shows both. Show me a single way that two people can independently measure this force or energy. This meter should show the same result no matter who is using it, like a volt meter.

I suspect you are going to say something about how it is a metaphysical force that requires interpretation, it can't be quantified... am I right?

Ummm... still you? I'm still not the one equivocating. By saying that your walking balance and your supposed "house balance" (whatever the hell that means" are

Saying "hey, this area is too dark, maybe we should get some light in here" isn't something we have a problem with. (I might have a problem with the "house layout is too confusing" though. What the hell are you talking about? Unless the doors randomly change where they lead or something, getting used to a new house's layout tends to be pretty easy.) We do, however, have a problem with someone saying that it has a metaphysical effect on a person's life. Saying it does isn't common sense, it's bullshit. Also, critical thinking is something everyone can use; skeptics are just people who use it consistently.

I just took a quick look at your place; you mention Feng Shui related cures? THAT is the sort of thing I have a problem with.

Now, show me evidence that a "life force" exists. That's the only thing I'm asking at the moment. Just give me evidence for that. If you can do that, that'll be a major step towards convincing me, though you'll still need to do a bit more.

Howard has already disavowed Qi in his use of Feng Shui, calling it New Agey.

That is why I am pressing on Yin and Yang. I'm not sure why you would cast off one and not the other.

Like many others, you have been misled by the popular media and have an unrealistic “new age” expectation of Feng Shui. We are not dealing with some mysterious force here; instead we are dealing with the age-old problem of man’s relationship to his environment.

There is a rogue italics. Some idiot screwed up a close italics, and since then we're in a different reality. I thought it was just me. I'll try some magic, here and see if it works. The preview function doesn't work from here, so I won't know til it's up. Sorry for the weirdness.

There are a few good books and I already mentioned one, Lee hae-Hai's PhD thesis, and you can also read up Hong-Key Yoon's Geomantic Relationship between Culture and Nature in Korea or'An Anthropological Analysis of Chinese Geomancy by Stephen Feuchtwang.

There is a few good books you can read up, I mentioned Lee Sang-Hae's "Feng Shui - Its Context and Meanings" already. You can also read up Stephen Feuchwang's "An Anthropological Analysis of Chinese Geomancy" and Hong-Key Yoon's "Geomantic Relationships Between Culture and Nature in Korea". They are all academic citations.

If I you won't read my books, why should I read you your words? There is no Ganying, so nothing is going.

We are just two people posturing, you are looking at me over there and me looking at you over here. You think you can see me and telling who I am, I think I can see you and telling you who you are. But is it what you say who I am who I am and what I say who you are who you are?

"There goes a Woo",
"No, I am not a Woo, you are",
"No I am not, you are",
"No I am not, you are",
"No I am not, you are",

I have not cast off qi nor yin and yang, it is your interpretation of my words.

OK, then back to my original request:

Please link me to a way to measure Qi, yin and Yang, Yin or Yang, or any combination of Yin and Yang that you wish. Please provide me a way that two people can independently measure the same Qi, Yin and/or Yang and get the same answer. The measurement method or device can have a quantifiable or categorical output, I don't care.

I have opened up the prospect of the ability to measure Qi, yin and/or yang as much as possible. You just have to fill in the blank. Please show me when this has ever been done. You don't need to refer to books, but a simple study or something I can make or do myself will do just fine.

Surely, in 3000 years the actual presence of Qi, Yin and Yang has been checked and verified. Right? Of course bloodletting was practiced for about 2000 years and was only abandoned in the last 200 after checking if it actually worked. So maybe we should just check to see if Qi is real, no?

This simple request would transform the views about Feng Shui (and acupuncture, reiki, intercessory prayer, healing touch, and most everything else that we have trouble believing) of everyone reading your posts.

Why makes you think I want to transform anyone's view here? I can only tell you my experience.

I know Feng Shui makes a difference for me as an architect, acupuncture works on me and enabled me to avoid a major operation, I don't know what intercessory prayer is, so I can't comment. I have been to reiki and healing touch and they don't have any effect on me.

What is your experience? Have you try any of these personally or you just use your critical thinking about them?

Anything else you don't believe in that you think I am responsible and have an answer for your lack of faith?

I was going to avoid this thread because I have yet to see anything that Howard says that differs from any other New Ager or Woo, but I couldn't resist a couple of things (in no particular order):

The fact that you are writing this means your life force is working and you exist

One of the very best examples of circular reasoning I've seen for a while.

KofF: How do we know there is a lifeforce?
Howard: You're alive aren't you? Therefore there must be lifeforce.

This is no different to the following:

Jimmy_Blue: Large purple spotted (yet invisible) gophers attached to your back (that you can't feel either) are what give you life.
Howard: How do you know?
Jimmy_Blue: You're alive aren't you?

If you can't see what the problem is here Howard then there is little point in posting anymore.

What is your experience? Have you try any of these personally or you just use your critical thinking about them?

Ah the old "Don't knock it till you've tried it" ploy. Well Howard, have you had sex with your mother? No? I guess you can't say if there is anything wrong with that then can you. Tried eating whale shit? Well, I guess you can't have any valid arguments against eating whale shit then.

Once again, if you don't see what is wrong with your statement, there is little point in you continuing to post.

What major operation, how do you know you needed it? Were you receiving other conventional treatment at the same time?

Breathing and breathing out is yin and yang, want to measure it?

No, that's the respiratory system.

Ah, life force. Want to have some evidence of your life giving qi? No problem, hold your breath for a few minutes and see how do you feel.

Again with the circular argument. The same applies to the life giving gophers Howard.

The Aussies would say you lot are bloody proofters!

(In case you want proof that you lot are bloody proofters, it is a punt and it cannot be proven, it can only be felt)

Oh how original. Just one of many insults you've thrown out, and no doubt at some point you will be claiming that we are the ones who insult, tear down and don't actually have an argument.

Feng Shui is about man's relationship to his environment, so the best evidence for Feng Shui is look up from your computer and see what is around you.

Do you get dizzy a lot Howard?

Feng Shui can help with balance in a house by using a light meter to say this side of the house is too bright and this side is too dark, so you need some shades here and knock out a window there. Feng Shui can use observation and say this house is too irregular and too confusing in its planning, so try to buy another one to avoid feeling lost and waste your money.

So basically, Feng Shui is just a fancy word for interior decoration and design?

Don't tell me, it is only common sense! If everyone has common sense then we don't need FS. If everyone can use critical thinking, then we don't need any skeptics.

The irony here just passed you by didn't it? Yes Howard you are quite right - if everyone had common sense then we wouldn't need Feng Shui. If everyone used critical thinking, we wouldn't need to call ourselves skeptics. THAT'S THE POINT.

I have no problem with TechSkeptic thinking FS is just magical furniture re-arranging, that is his reality, neither mine nor what FS really is

So are you saying there is objective reality or not? IF FS really is something, besides what you or Techskeptic think, then surely you do think there is objective reality?

People here think that they can use critical thinking to evaluate the truth, the truth is only their truth

So there is no objective reality? Which means Feng Shui can't actually really be something, just what either you or Techskeptic think it is. So you were wrong. Or contradicting yourself.

... the truth is out there already and all we have to do is to use critical thinking to get it.

Precisely. Welcome to the scientific method. Although, it is misleading to call it the truth. I prefer the term reality. Science is about understanding reality. Critical thinking is one tool in the scientific method for doing so.

How come all these scientists keep arguing with each other and we keep doing it ourselves here?

Scientists keep arguing over things that they haven't found the answer to yet, they don't argue over things they have. As for why we keep arguing, you gave the answer above. Not everyone uses critical thinking.

The mechanism used in FS is “ganying” (mutual resonance) between the objects and users and when that happens there is “qing” (affection and connection); where there is “qing”, “sheng qi” (life enhancing synergy/qi) is assembled and that is the aim of good FS.

How do you measure these things? Objectively? Subjectively?

We just came back from a well-preserved old town in Yunan (Lijing) where FS was used to create a healthy environment that lasted more than 1,500 years and is still thriving.

And I went to university in York, founded in 71 AD and still thriving. No Feng Shui in sight. So your anecdotes prove NOTHING other than that you are subject to all kinds of psychological suggestion (from both within and without).

and like science, Feng Shui also made some assumptions in its paradigm that is culturally unique.

Name one assumption in the scientific method that is culturally unique, and to which culture it is unique. Bear in mind that the scientific method was not invented in "The West". We can wait.

I see no difference between the content of what you say, and the content of your average new ager. You might use different words, you might pretend you have a different and more valid thought process, but its still the same in the end no matter how much you have convinced yourself that its different.

I'm an Aussie, and I can tell you we wouldn't. We'd be more likely to discover by accident a way to make everyones comments appear in italics and then ruin the site for everyone.

Generally, though, I'm afraid you're on very thin ice with your whole line of reasoning. By identifying qi with the state of being alive, (or yin yang with breathing) all the other qualities that feng shui claims do not automatically follow. It's a bit like people who start off with the argument that God created the laws of physics and then suddenly leap to Christ dying for our sins.

On the one hand you're trying to establish that qi is an objective phenomenon which should be accepted by science without having to comply with the normal rules for evidence, while on the other hand, insisting there are different realities.

Further, you (quite reasonably) argue that feng shui can't be described as just moving furniture, but then want the rules of science top be suspended so that qi can be accepted as scientifically valid. You accept objective standards when it comes to feng shui, but for science, you suddenly want us to recognise different realities. It's contradictory. You can't have it both ways.

Answer to Techskeptic

ahem....*whispers* the italics started in your post :)

Indeed. Thank you for pointing that out! Now I will double check my formatting.

"I'm an Aussie, and I can tell you we wouldn't. We'd be more likely to discover by accident a way to make everyones comments appear in italics and then ruin the site for everyone."

For an Aussie, you sure don't have much of a sense of humour and a paranoia to boot. I have nothing to do with your italics and to say I ruin the site for everyone is just like your reasoning - full of crap.

I never claim FS is a science, it is you who claimed that I claimed that FS is a science. I said it is a mixture of many things just like how multiculturalism has made Australia. Just like we don't need the British to make us valid, Feng Shgui don't need science to make it valid, may be you do.

There is more than one reality and you just got stuck in one and if anyone not in it you would say they are not scientific and can't think critically like you.

Come to Sydeny sometime and feel the good FS here. Give me a call and we can do some Qigong together and you can feel some of the Wooooo force that keeps you alive! Afterwards we can have yum cha in Chinatown and see some of my FS at work. Wooooo. May be you can get to know another reality that is not too bad after all. Then may be not, since you are not a true blue, you just claimed to be one.

Howard,
To clear up a misunderstanding, I didn't mean to imply you had anything to do with the italics. I know I caused it myself by mistake (I know exactly what I did), and my comment was supposed to be a joke. I wasn't accusing you, sorry that it came over like that. Jokes are not easy on the internet.

Now back to the issue. In your first comment to me, you wrote:

Feng Shui is both an art and a science like architecture

Now you write:

I never claim FS is a science, it is you who claimed that I claimed that FS is a science.

You're constantly changing your position. Please get these things cleared up before you write.

I said it is a mixture of many things just like how multiculturalism has made Australia.

I don't recall you saying that at all. I was objecting to you calling it a science.

Just like we don't need the British to make us valid, Feng Shgui don't need science to make it valid, may be you do

So in other words, feng shui is an art, not a science. Good that we've finally cleared that up.

There is more than one reality and you just got stuck in one and if anyone not in it you would say they are not scientific and can't think critically like you. May be you can get to know another reality that is not too bad after all.

Why do you spiritual folk always assume skeptics have never looked at the world from any other perspective? I studied anthroposophy for many years when I was younger, (and I find its ideas on architecture much better than than feng shui, but that's just personal preference). I've practised meditation for 20 years, and still do, have worked as an alternative health practitioner, and a whole load of other things. I've probably got better woo credentials than you.

Howard: The reason circular reasoning is bad is because with circular reasoning, you can, for example, prove that the moon is made of Swiss cheese flavored ninjas that explode on contact with air and slaughter the universe with their pet sun pirates made of evil Xboxes.

Would you agree that's not true? But you can prove it with circular reasoning.

Personally I hate this type of response. I totally understand it, but that is the exact thing JoNova said to you, and if you weren't as frustrated as my when she did that...well, I guess you are a more calm person than me. Regardless it is annoying.

How will Howard, or anyone reading this thread, ever understand how what they view as evidence is really just anecdotes or equivocation or some other set of fallacious arguments.

For example KoF, before the outburst, explained perfectly why circular reasoning (I have no idea what circular thinking is, perhaps that fine for entertainment) is not a good form of examination. Of course, delivering the actual cheese ninja proof would have been more fun.

It looks like the whole problem here is simply that Howard is running with a wrong definition of science. I think he is using...

Science: the way to find out things that make you feel good

While we are using the real definition of science as a way of knowing things. By his definition science is art, and therefore FS is in fact, as we have suspected all along, art.

I am so glad that you are so certain that FS belongs to a pigeon hole called "art" and trimmed it into the right size and shape and stuck her into it. I suppose you have a pigeon hole for meditation as well and everything else.

You win, FS is an art, just like a piece of painting. Does it really change anything by replacing woo with boo*?

*boo - different to woo where only one type of thinking is allowed, everything else is woo and should be boo upon.

It looks like the whole problem here is simply that Howard is running with a wrong definition of science. I think he is using...

Science: the way to find out things that make you feel good

While we are using the real definition of science as a way of knowing things. By his definition science is art, and therefore FS is in fact, as we have suspected all along, art."

...and I think you guys are using the definition for science as a way to cut things up and put them into separate pigeon holes and give them a name so you think you will get to know them.

From my perspective, it seems you guys are looking at science as a definition, whereas I always thought of it as a process and a good scientist is also a good artist, he is logical but also creative and he uses his feeling as well as logic.

What makes you think linear thinking is better than circular thinking?

Circular thinking doesn't go anywhere but back to the start. Linear thinking is at least going somewhere, just not always where we like.

Why can't we do a bit of both?

The fact that you ask this just proves that you've missed the point. Read the link I gave and try to understand the example I used, perhaps then you will understand why circular reasoning is a problem.

But, just for kicks, I'll explain it again. When you use circular reasoning, when you beg the question, you assume that the thing you are trying to prove exists, already exists. The existence of that thing is part of the proof of its existence - so you prove nothing other than that you are an empty headed woo who likes to insist on 'other ways of knowing' and intellectual relativism.

What is your definition of "new age" and how do you prove someone has new age of old age thinking?

My own definition of new age would include, but not exclusively, "anything that involves mystical bollocks, intellectual hand waving, misuse of science (particularly but not limited to quantam mechanics), misuse of history, cultural and intellectual relativism and a disregard or dislike of critical thinkers and critical thinking'. I'd say you fit the bill so far. I could go on and give a treatise on "The New Ager according to Jim", but I have better things to do right now.

And I didn't even understand the second part of your question.

May be we argue a lot because we don't really know how to think properly, no?

No, we argue a lot because some of us don't know how to think critically. And yes, at times that would apply, I am sure, to anyone who has posted here.

Skeptics understand that we are not fallible, which is why we rely on formal logic and the scientific method to help us evaluate reality and come up with an explanation. That is why we are always asking questions and re-evaluating our positions. How about you Howard?

What process did you follow to arrive at your conclusion that FS is only art like a piece of painting?

No one made any conlusion that limited art to a piece of painting. The process we followed in determining Feng Shui is not a science is shown clearly above. We asked on what grounds do you claim it's a science, you failed to provide any, and finished up claiming you never said it's a science.

I think the matter has been settled. No one has been pushing for a narrow definition of art, as you claim. I think your main gripe is that calling it an art doesn't have the same ring to it as saying it's art and science.

Going back to where we started may not be in the same plane of understanding and going somewhere for somewhere sake may get us lost, so may be another approach is not to say there is only just one way of thinking but in certain situations, circular thinking may even be better than linear. On earth, when we travel in a straight line we, get back to where we started.

"Chinese" thinking is different to "western" thinking, we prefer to use correlation instead of logic because the concern is always with the human being, some some abstract concepts that a "westerner" has to get to out there.

The definition you gave "new age" seems to me like anything that is not intellectually vigorous enough for you, but is intellectual truth the only truth? There is also emotional truth and being irrational is also part of being human.

Perhaps the appropriate guideline is not to go to the extreme of these two complementary opposites but find a balance and a harmony in between.

Who is to be the judge of this harmony and balance? For the "Chinese" it is the human well being and for the "westerner" it is the Absolute Truth. So why not have a jury instead of one judge?

That is why I said FS is composed of many disciplines and modes of thinking, it is part art and part science and part many things and the composition changes as the jury is chosen for each case.

But no, you guys insisted FS is only art and nothing more. That is to me, being extreme again.

I am not saying jcairo is agreeing with me, but at least he attempts to see my point of view. At the same time, I can see where you guys come from and the world needs guys like you, but there is no need to be too extreme throw the baby (that is anything you don't quite understand or accept) out with the bath water. Why can't the new agers and the skeptics co-habit together, you never know, some of them may fall in love and have babies together and wash themself in the same water called Life.

Stop even trying to say Feng Shui is anything like a science. It's evidence-free BS. In science, we need evidence that something is true before we believe it. Evidence, by the way, is that thing I've been asking for.

We have been seeing your point of view; we also have seen it in a million other people. We, like jcairo, think it's a load of BS.

We're not actually throwing the baby out, because the baby doesn't exist. Nobody has been able to find any evidence the baby exists, but you still insist it does. So you'll have to find some evidence before we say there is a baby. Have you noticed a key thing here? We keep on saying evidence. This is because you need evidence to prove things.

What the hell is the point of the last sentence? "Leave us alone, you big meanie skeptics! WAAAAAH!"?

Howard, sorry, but you haven't shown us any reason to say that Feng Shui is even "part science". No matter how much you water it down, you are on the wrong track. Stick with "correlative thinking" and don't make any claim that can be tested if you are not prepared to actually test it.

Makes it a bit harder to promote, I know - you can't claim you've increased profits in Darling Harbour or anything like that, but at least you will be a bit more accurate.

The new age grabs hold of any idea, from any culture, that will sell. Chakras, shamanism, Feng Shui, quantum physics, paradigms, holons, whatever, and then rips out all the parts which are either difficult to understand or hard to market. It's like a cultural blender (food mixer) that rips out anything deemed undigestable and turns it into easily marketable pap, while retaining the original name.

Obviously you have a connection to Chinese culture, Howard, which more "new agey" feng shui practitioners don't have, and I would encourage you to continue to oppose their misappropriation of the name Feng Shui.

For the "Chinese" it is the human well being and for the "westerner" it is the Absolute Truth.

I believe you have just admitted to using the definition of science that I described that you were using.

That is a fine way to live, for the most part (until it gets you into trouble, or someone else). It is also not science. It doesn't matter if it is Chinese or Western or Martian. Your definition of science is not the pursuit of knowledge and therefore is not science.

I did not say FS is science, I said FS is part science and part many things...

OK, which part is science? Which part is based on a fundamental set of laws that are describable by experiment? What part can be repeated the same way independently by two different people?

"OK, which part is science? Which part is based on a fundamental set of laws that are describable by experiment? What part can be repeated the same way independently by two different people?

Feng Shui uses the observation of nature as its basis to develop a model (that is learn from nature) for human application.

For example, we observe the yin yang relationship between the mountains and the water courses, we look at the movements of the heavenly bodies and human comfort and human needs, then came up with the Siling Model and the Mingtang concept in FS to function as a checklist for site selection.

The Siling model and the Mingtang concept have been tested for hundreds of years and we still use them to a high degree of success today. I think that part of FS fits in quite well with western science as we know it today.

There are also other components of FS that is more art than science and also more philosophy than art and so forth, and of course there is also a heavy cultural component that seem strange to you westerners.

Contrary to your believe and understanding, we are also interested in the pursue of knowledge but may not do it in the exactly the ways you are familiar with, but there are similarities and some of them are suitable to be called "scientific".

But if you think there is a monopoly to your science, then by all means called FS Chinese science, or science with a Chinese character, or the Chinese art and science of FS because that is what it is from my perspective.

To call it the art of Feng Shui is OK if it is in the same meaning as the art of medicine, or the the art of architecture, because both of these disciplines have some components of science in them just like FS.

We are in fact fighting over nothing, and the misunderstanding came about because you guys don't know anything about FS nor the Chinese culture, all you are judging on is critical thinking and you are doing a pretty sloppy job of that, because you don't have the neccessary information to be critical.

"Obviously you have a connection to Chinese culture, Howard, which more "new agey" feng shui practitioners don't have, and I would encourage you to continue to oppose their misappropriation of the name Feng Shui."

This is part of that process because you guys have adopted the new age definition for FS and attack us in as an ignorant way as they do. I am here trying to explain an alternative point of view but gets caught up with what pigeon hole to put it!

I’m saying it doesn’t necessarily use or need them. Science does. No logic, no evidence = no science.

What process did you follow to arrive at your conclusion that FS is only art like a piece of painting?

Not just like a painting. Regardless, you said a good scientist is also a good artist, he is logical but also creative and he uses his feeling as well as logic. Your arguments for FS may be creative and have feeling, but they are devoid of logic, facts and evidence (necessary to be science), so your arguments therefore show that FS is just art, not science.

…in certain situations, circular thinking may even be better than linear. On earth, when we travel in a straight line we, get back to where we started.

Don’t be silly. This is a false analogy – evaluating truth claims is not the same as completing a physical journey.

"Chinese" thinking is different to "western" thinking, we prefer to use correlation instead of logic because the concern is always with the human being, some some abstract concepts that a "westerner" has to get to out there.

Seems a little racist. Please present evidence that “Chinese thinking” is different from “western thinking” in the way you claim.

The definition you gave "new age" seems to me like anything that is not intellectually vigorous enough for you, but is intellectual truth the only truth?

Science is the best way we know for evaluating truth claims. If you know a better way, please present it. Along with evidence that it is better.

There is also emotional truth and being irrational is also part of being human.

Yes it is. As is being wrong, as is being fooled, as is fooling yourself. Which is why science developed as a method of getting round these problems.

Perhaps the appropriate guideline is not to go to the extreme of these two complementary opposites but find a balance and a harmony in between.

No. If there are two opinions, two positions, two methods – the best option is NOT exactly half way between the two. The best method is the one that is right. Again, please present your better method than science for evaluating truth claims.

But no, you guys insisted FS is only art and nothing more. That is to me, being extreme again.

No, it’s being correct. By “extreme”, you just mean that we won’t meet you half way. But why should we? Your approach has proven to be a dead end.

Look, art is great. Life would be pretty miserable without art. But art, good though it is, is totally useless for evaluating truth claims. For that you need the scientific method – systemized testing in a way that controls for biases and prevents you from fooling yourself. You haven’t shown that FS is based on anything like that. A talented interior decorator or designer can improve the look and feel of a building without using science. If he does that using yin and yang as metaphors, to help him decide on his design, then there is nothing wrong with that. The problem comes when people start to think that qi, and yin and yang, are actual tangible things that exist outside the imaginations of the people talking about them. There is just no evidence that this is the case.

No. If there are two opinions, two positions, two methods – the best option is NOT exactly half way between the two. The best method is the one that is right. Again, please present your better method than science for evaluating truth claims.

I hope you don't mind if I explain this via analogy so he can understand easier. What is meant by this is that, for example, if you have someone saying to murder all kittens, and someone who says that's stupid, the correct course is not to murder exactly half of all kittens. The middle ground would not be the best.

Howard, I said that until you show us some evidence of the baby, it's probably wrong, and you're probably just deluding yourself into thinking there is one. You still haven't given any evidence. Give me evidence. This discussion will not go anywhere until you present some goddamn evidence.

One of the FS hypothesis (the Siling model) is a three sided enclosure facing the warm sun is more conducive to human comfort and plant growth, this hypothesis is supported by works of Prof Yu Kong-Jian, Dean of Department of Landscaping at the Beijing University (Defensive Landscaping) and Prof. Michael Mak at Newcastle University with his PhD thesis (FS Expertise Miodel). Also there are evidence from Permaculture and agriculture and architecture to support this hypothesis.

The Yin Yang concept is not that different to the concept of symmetry in science with respect to space and time. The cycle of time which we use in FS is also an accepted scientific evidence. We also need to know the physical laws to make FS work. Psychology, geography, sociology and anthropology are also used in FS.

So in this respect, there is an overlap with science, but if you insist that FS is not a science then I have no problem with it but that does not make it a woo because FS is neither anti-science nor anti-critical thinking, it is an art and a science not unlike architecture in many respects.

But I have a feeling you guys don't think architecture is a science either.

As I mentioned earlier, FS is about man's relationship to his environment and we use every possible means to explore that relationship, including the scientific methods but not exclusive of other approaches. If you don't think that qualifies FS to use the term science, then call it what you will.

One of the FS hypothesis (the Siling model) is a three sided enclosure facing the warm sun is more conducive to human comfort and plant growth

Being in the warm sun is nice and helps plants grow – and you need to invoke FS to prove this? Really?

The Yin Yang concept is not that different to the concept of symmetry in science with respect to space and time. The cycle of time which we use in FS is also an accepted scientific evidence. We also need to know the physical laws to make FS work. Psychology, geography, sociology and anthropology are also used in FS.

This is just misappropriating real science and claiming it is part of FS, just the same way that alternative medicine practitioners appropriate things like exercise,eating well etc and claiming this is part of alternative medicine.

So in this respect, there is an overlap with science, but if you insist that FS is not a science then I have no problem with it but that does not make it a woo because FS is neither anti-science nor anti-critical thinking, it is an art and a science not unlike architecture in many respects.

You still haven’t shown any evidence that FS is based on any kind of science. All you did here was name some real science (Psychology, geography, sociology etc) and say, hey we do that too.

As I mentioned earlier, FS is about man's relationship to his environment and we use every possible means to explore that relationship, including the scientific methods but not exclusive of other approaches. If you don't think that qualifies FS to use the term science, then call it what you will.

"Look, art is great. Life would be pretty miserable without art. But art, good though it is, is totally useless for evaluating truth claims. For that you need the scientific method – systemized testing in a way that controls for biases and prevents you from fooling yourself."

Science may be able to evaluate truth claims but what it evaluated may not be the truth.

What Science Isn't, Part IV: Science isn't Truth and it isn't certainty

Some people assume that scientists have generated a body of knowledge that is sure to be true. Some ideas, after all, are known with enough certainty that most of us take them for granted. An example is our common assumption that the earth orbits the sun. Much scientific evidence supports that idea, which is the heliocentric theory of the solar system, and most of us take it as "true". However, no human has observed the solar system and seen the earth traveling in an orbit around the sun. It's just a theory, if a nearly inescapable one.

In that sense, most scientists will concede that, although they seek Truth, they don't know or generate Truth. They propose and test theories, knowing that future evidence may cause refinement, revision, or even rejection of today's theories. Ask a scientist about an issue that's not directly observable, and you probably hear an answer that starts with something like "The evidence suggests that . . ." or "Our current understanding is . . .". You're not hearing waffling or indecision. You're hearing a reasoned recognition that we can't know many things with absolute certainty - we only know the observable evidence. However, we can reach the best possible conclusion based on the most complete and modern evidence available.

That contrasts strongly with the knowledge claimed by many other people. Many people claim that they, or a book or books they endorse, hold all relevant knowledge and that such knowledge is absolutely and unquestionably true. The Bible, for example, is often held up as containing all knowledge, and as being literal and infallible Truth. No science book has ever been endorsed that way, nor should it ever be.

As an example, consider the question "How did the world begin?". A scientist's answer will begin with the evidence that we've gleaned from decades if not centuries of astronomical study, which includes several lines of evidence about the motions of galaxies. It will conclude with a theory that fits the accumulated evidence. There won't be, or at least oughtn't be, any statement about absolute truth.
In contrast, some other people will answer that the world was created by a certain deity a certain number of years ago. If asked about their level of certainty, these people generally respond that they have absolutely no uncertainty. No scientist thinking about what he or she is saying will answer with that degree of certainty, regardless of the evidence available to them, nor will they lay that kind of claim to Truth. They may have a high level of confidence if there's abundant evidence, but they won't claim absolute Truth or absolute certainty.

It's worth remembering that a person's admission of uncertainty doesn't mean they're wrong, whether the issue is in politics, economics, religion, or science. In fact, a person who admits some uncertainty in their thinking is often closer to the truth, or at least understands the issues better, than someone who claims absolute certainty. Shouting loudest does not generate truth.

Science may be able to evaluate truth claims but what it evaluated may not be the truth.

Never said anything else. And the rest of your post was just a long winded rebuttal to that huge straw man of your own invention.

I never said science was always right. What I said was:

It’s the best method we have for evaluating truth claims

If you know a better method, please tell us about it.

Still waiting for your answer to #2.

Your post is really nothing more than “science was wrong before”. All true but misses the point. Read the link. As I wrote back then, science is a series of provisional truths, backed by evidence, that are amended when better evidence is available. The key word here is “evidence”. In other words, we have a reason to suppose scientifically supported ideas are true. Contrast this with unscientific ideas, where there is rarely any rational reason to suppose they are true. Additionally, the scientific idea that was shown to be “wrong” was often not completely wrong: it often still had utility.

In reality, science has proved the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works. The appeal to “science was wrong before” is just a smoke screen to disguise the fact that the believer has no evidence for his claim. It does not follow that science should not be applied to evaluate claims, or that unscientific claims are likely to be true.

It's worth remembering that a person's admission of uncertainty doesn't mean they're wrong, whether the issue is in politics, economics, religion, or science. In fact, a person who admits some uncertainty in their thinking is often closer to the truth, or at least understands the issues better, than someone who claims absolute certainty. Shouting loudest does not generate truth.

Well you’re the one who is sure FS is science. We are still waiting for evidence from you to back up your claim. You are the one shouting loud, but generating no truth.

Sophistry. This is just “science doesn’t know everything” Again, true, but again you draw the wrong conclusion. You think that the corollary is that any idea you like the sound of, that cannot be proven false, is worthy of consideration. This is wrong. Something is only worthy of consideration if there is a reason to suppose it is true. Usually that means some evidence. That you still haven’t provided.

You’re certainly doing the rounds of fallacious arguments we’ve never ever heard before. Didn’t you read the Comment Guidelines Go check them out – there’s a few you haven’t used yet.

What Science Isn't, Part IV: Science isn't Truth and it isn't certainty

Who on earth do you think you are talking to here? Idiot.

What is it woos have with science? Something about it sends them nuts. They try to tell people they're scientific without knowing the first thing about it, and then try and denigrate it, again without knowing the first thing about it.

But of course it's skeptics who are narrow minded and dismiss things out of hand.

Go and look up falsifiability you ignorant fool, and don't write another word here until you can explain the concept clearly.